A nice win after yet another slow start

[MU Avenue]

The win over Pittsburgh again revealed a never-say-die Marquette team that would not have to be a never-say-die team -- at least so often -- if it did not start so many games so slowly.

This year's squad is another in a long history of Marquette teams that have been slow out of the gate. In all the years I have been watching Marquette basketball, I have been baffled by how often MU falls behind early, even to inferior teams, and then must power its way back in the second half.

It just seems to be a Marquette "thing," a "thing" that I wish we could change.

[Tugg Speedman]

Last year the complaint was we blew leads late in the game, which means we did not have a slow start.

This year the compliant is we are a slow starting team.

We did not start off slow against Wisconsin, Washington, Georgetown or any of the cupcakes.  We did start off slow against Vandy, Syracuse and this past week.  (LSU we were slow the entire game).

The slowness thing you talk about started about 10 days ago, not in all the years I have been watching Marquette basketball.

So, I'm not ready to call it a hallmark of MU basketball just yet.

[nyg]

Agree with the exception of the LSU game.  MU was up 13 to 0 at the 16 minute mark of first half. 

[mu_hilltopper]

We did not start off slow against Wisconsin, Washington, Georgetown or any of the cupcakes.  

Well, you were right on the G-Town game... otherwise, not so much.

UW, we scored 3 points in the first 7 minutes, down 5.
Washington, we scored 6 points in the first 7, down 6.
Pitt, we scored 8 in the first 9, down 9
SU, we scored 12 in the first 17, down 21.
Vandy, we scored 13 in the first 14, down 22.

MU Avenue is right on.  Discounting the cupcakes, MU has started slow often, many fruitless trips down court, getting down 5-10-20 points early -- and without doing the lookups .. I'll guess easily half of MU's games versus quality opps in previous seasons, our offense fails to ignite in the first 10 minutes.

[ATWizJr]

Consistent play is our biggest problem.

[MUMac]

Well, you were right on the G-Town game... otherwise, not so much.

UW, we scored 3 points in the first 7 minutes, down 5.
Washington, we scored 6 points in the first 7, down 6.
Pitt, we scored 8 in the first 9, down 9
SU, we scored 12 in the first 17, down 21.
Vandy, we scored 13 in the first 14, down 22.

MU Avenue is right on.  Discounting the cupcakes, MU has started slow often, many fruitless trips down court, getting down 5-10-20 points early -- and without doing the lookups .. I'll guess easily half of MU's games versus quality opps in previous seasons, our offense fails to ignite in the first 10 minutes.

Depends on the definition of start.  At Syracuse, we did not necessarily start slowly.  MU was down 12-11, 7 minutes into the game.  The problem was when they scored only 1 point over the next 11 minutes.

[GGGG]

It is better to say that our offense can go stagnant for long stretches of time.  Sometimes those are at the beginning of the game, sometimes at the end, sometimes in between.

[MUMac]

It is better to say that our offense can go stagnant for long stretches of time.  Sometimes those are at the beginning of the game, sometimes at the end, sometimes in between.

+1

[Lennys Tap]

It is better to say that our offense can go stagnant for long stretches of time.  Sometimes those are at the beginning of the game, sometimes at the end, sometimes in between.

This is true. We're not great shooters nor can we overpower anyone with our inside game. When our defense isn't wreaking havoc (creating offense through turnovers or fast breaks from rebounded misses) we're an ordinary team. Everyone (myself included) gets frustrated with the easy baskets that result from our overplays, double teams, etc., but creating turnovers and/or speeding up the game is our best (only?) shot against more physical and methodical teams.

[mu_hilltopper]

True, the metric could be better.

How about .. we score 72-76 ppg, which means we should score 14-15 by the 8 minute mark.

All of those examples show, in those first ~8 mins, the offense is performing 50%+ or worse than it will for the remainder of the game .. and our opponent is thumping us out of the gate.

[MU Avenue]

Well, you were right on the G-Town game... otherwise, not so much.

UW, we scored 3 points in the first 7 minutes, down 5.
Washington, we scored 6 points in the first 7, down 6.
Pitt, we scored 8 in the first 9, down 9
SU, we scored 12 in the first 17, down 21.
Vandy, we scored 13 in the first 14, down 22.

MU Avenue is right on.  Discounting the cupcakes, MU has started slow often, many fruitless trips down court, getting down 5-10-20 points early -- and without doing the lookups .. I'll guess easily half of MU's games versus quality opps in previous seasons, our offense fails to ignite in the first 10 minutes.

The facts that mu_hilltopper has laid out here make the case nicely: This season's Marquette basketball team is another slow starter in a long history of slow-starting MU teams.

Numbers do not lie. Marquette often lets its opponent control the scoring and the game's tempo, even if that opponent is the weaker team.

Marquette also has a years-old habit of playing to the level of its competition, whether that competition be excellent or not so good.

I look forward to the day when Marquette consistently blasts out of the gate and immediately takes charge of most games instead of waiting until the second half.

[Hoopaloop]

Seems a bit of both.  Slow starts in some games, but also a lack of killer instinct in others.  We have some very slim victories over teams that at least according to the RPI are not very good.  Games we could have lost:  Pitt, Nova, Norfolk State, Washington.  In three of those games we had a double digit lead in the second half but the opposing team got it down to a one possession game (except Nova, cut it to 4 points).  Of course we also know we had a 13-0 lead on LSU and a 17 point lead at Georgetown and lost both.  We have to find a way to put these teams down when we have big leads.

[mug644]

Is it possible that teams are ready for MU's pressure defense at the outset of the game, but then have more trouble keeping up with the energy and having more turnovers, leading to MU having a strong stretch towards the end of the first half? I'm not looking at the detailed numbers but just wondering.